Here is a list of all the postings blowlamp has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
Thread: Update Smart Meter |
22/08/2022 14:32:26 |
Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 22/08/2022 14:11:02:
Posted by blowlamp on 22/08/2022 12:28:04:
My suspicions were aroused as to where this is leading once I'd cottoned on to the fact that there is a world-wide push to elimanate any energy source from being available to us except smart metered electricity. No petrol, no diesel, no gas powered boilers and certainly nothing fueled by coal. Martin. There a need to move away from fossil fuels rather than a push. Don't forget Martin insists it's important to get cause and effect the right way round. It's need. Possibilities:
As far I can see no-one benefits from a Woke-Green conspiracy. In contrast, managing climate change and diminishing resources benefits everyone. In my experience it's best to tackle problems head on, not to pretend they're unreal in hope they'll go away. Is it really vital to carry on exactly as we are? Children alive now are going to have to deal with a different world entirely. It's 2022 not 1982, and definitely not 1882! Dave
Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 22/08/2022 14:12:23
Dave. Is there enough generating capacity to replace what is being removed to satisfy this "need" you speak of? If not, then what's the upshot for the average citizen?
Martin.
|
22/08/2022 13:33:37 |
Posted by JasonB on 22/08/2022 13:25:03:
Anyone who is smart will set their EV to charge in the early hours of the morning using it's timer. Same with not turning the dishwasher on straight after dinner or putting a load in the washing machine at that time. So why complain just be smart and make the most of the system to benefit from the savings. These should cancel out cooking your dinner at the normal time at a higher rate.
If you presume the majority are smart, then the majority will do the same thing - which leaves us in the same situation, just time shifted. With still no alternative energy sources either. Edited By blowlamp on 22/08/2022 13:35:06 |
22/08/2022 12:28:04 |
My suspicions were aroused as to where this is leading once I'd cottoned on to the fact that there is a world-wide push to elimanate any energy source from being available to us except smart metered electricity. No petrol, no diesel, no gas powered boilers and certainly nothing fueled by coal.
Martin. |
22/08/2022 11:21:35 |
Those are the times they are proposing at the moment. How long before they are changed to a variable, sliding scale/tariff, of their choosing?
Martin. |
Thread: CO2 - Dumb question |
19/08/2022 13:30:12 |
Posted by Nicholas Wheeler 1 on 19/08/2022 13:18:22:
Posted by John Haine on 19/08/2022 13:07:09:
please PLEASE PLEASE could we just terminate this thread? It's going nowhere. It's about politics, so that's guaranteed
I'm following the science. |
19/08/2022 13:29:16 |
Posted by John Haine on 19/08/2022 13:07:09:
please PLEASE PLEASE could we just terminate this thread? It's going nowhere.
Chillax, man - it's just a conversation. Don't read it if you don't like it.
Martin. |
19/08/2022 13:26:14 |
Posted by Hopper on 19/08/2022 11:46:00:
Posted by blowlamp on 19/08/2022 11:41:50:
Hopper said: ..."I don't claim to be a scientist or to have a level of knowledge and expertise even approaching that of a scientist."... Well it may have taken ten pages to get here, but at last you admit that you can not explain the CO2 warming theory - thank you. As I and others have been trying to point out, there is more than one version of the science surrounding this topic and we want to consider those other versions too. The explanation in your LINK 2 says "As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’ ". Which is a puzzle to me, because if the atmospheric CO2 soaks up the energy on the way in, and before it gets to the surface, then that would reduce the surface warming effect. The article continues by saying this soaked up energy is then radiated back in all directions, including to the Earth's surface. The puzzle for me remains, because this re-emitted energy contained in the CO2, is the same energy that was initially present and would have struck the Earth's surface in the first place. Or has some energy been created somehow? Martin.
Just because it's a puzzle to you does not mean it is wrong. It just means you don't understand it. The scientists do.
Do you understand it? I was rather hoping you might explain it to me.
Martin. |
19/08/2022 11:41:50 |
Posted by Hopper on 19/08/2022 07:22:38:
Posted by blowlamp on 18/08/2022 14:30:42:
Posted by Hopper on 18/08/2022 12:07:14:
Posted by Howi on 18/08/2022 11:45:10:
Experience tells us that there is no such thing as black and white, everything is a shade of grey
But experience does tell us that science is the best way we have of understanding the world around us and of predicting future events in it. And that science is very clear on this subject. Anyhow, I'm off to bed. Big day tomorrow riding around on old motorbikes turning fossil fuel into CO2 emissions purely for the sake of entertainment. Yes, we are all doomed. Doomed I say. Edited By Hopper on 18/08/2022 12:20:32
Experience is telling me that you can't explain the science of how human contribution to CO2 affects the climate. If you can, it'd probably be quicker for you to post it here than keep replying to us need-to-be-convinced types. And scrap your planet-destroying motorbike while you're at it.
Martin.i I don't claim to be a scientist or to have a level of knowledge and expertise even approaching that of a scientist. Here is a link to what the science says, with a few footnotes etc linking to their sources. link And here is another scientific explanation for laymen on how CO2 causes global warming LINK 2 If you have a level of knowledge of geochemistry and geophysics and climatology etc that gives you a better understanding of the issues than the world's climate scientists, you should write up your findings in a scientific article and submit it to one of the scientific journals for publication. Articles are published on merit of their data/evidence, analysis/reasoning and conclusions, not the qualifications of the author, or lack there-of, so there is nothing to stop you getting published along with all the other scientists who have expert level knowledge of the topic. If you can demonstrate nearly all the world's scientists are wrong and you are right, your published work could change the course of history.
Hopper said: ..."I don't claim to be a scientist or to have a level of knowledge and expertise even approaching that of a scientist."... Well it may have taken ten pages to get here, but at last you admit that you can not explain the CO2 warming theory - thank you. As I and others have been trying to point out, there is more than one version of the science surrounding this topic and we want to consider those other versions too. The explanation in your LINK 2 says "As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’ ". Which is a puzzle to me, because if the atmospheric CO2 soaks up the energy on the way in, and before it gets to the surface, then that would reduce the surface warming effect. The article continues by saying this soaked up energy is then radiated back in all directions, including to the Earth's surface. The puzzle for me remains, because this re-emitted energy contained in the CO2, is the same energy that was initially present and would have struck the Earth's surface in the first place. Or has some energy been created somehow? Martin.
|
18/08/2022 18:37:24 |
Posted by duncan webster on 18/08/2022 16:47:21:
Posted by blowlamp on 18/08/2022 11:37:38:
Posted by duncan webster on 17/08/2022 23:33:23:
Posted by blowlamp on 15/08/2022 15:24:23:
Posted by duncan webster on 15/08/2022 15:10:14:
Piers Corbyn is Jeremy Corbyn's brother. Need I say more
Yeah, don't leave us hanging.
Martin. I never got round to answering this. For the benefit of non British folk, Jeremy Corbyn was leader of the UK Labour Party, as well as an anti-semitic supporter of any rag rag terrorist group. He was also anti NATO and anti EU (he reckoned it was a capitalist plot). Thankfully he was defeated at the last General election and has been thrown out of Labour. And I also forgot to mention that as well as being a climate change denier, brother Piers Corbyn is also a leading anti vaxxer. His views on the grassy knoll, the twin towers and Elvis on the moon are unknown Edited By duncan webster on 17/08/2022 23:46:16
So what bearing on this subject does his brother Jeremy have? It seems like you've made the mistake of using the fallacy of association argument to further whatever point it is you are trying to make. Much of what you have written about him is untrue, but you should know that he is still a member of the Labour Party and has been consistantly chosen by his constituents since 1983. Another thing you forgot to mention is this: Piers Corbyn is an Astrophysicist, he has a first class degree in Physics from Imperial College and an MSc in Astrophysics from Queen Mary College... Qualifications which I very much doubt you have. As you have already negated your own "grassy knoll, the twin towers and Elvis on the moon" comment, they can be disregarded as character assassination. Why do you think he should be 'pro vaccine', if he doesn't think they are of a benefit? To me, you seem to be agitated that people with views different to yours are voicing their opinion. What bothers you so much about that?
Martin.
As it happens I do have a degree from Imperial College, but as Piers is a few years older than me I doubt we were there at the same time. Despite this I acknowledge that I do from time to time make a mistake. Getting involved with a discussion with zealots was one such occasion.
Another mistake you made is labeling people as "zealots" for having the temerity to question an unproven theory. |
18/08/2022 14:30:42 |
Posted by Hopper on 18/08/2022 12:07:14:
Posted by Howi on 18/08/2022 11:45:10:
Experience tells us that there is no such thing as black and white, everything is a shade of grey
But experience does tell us that science is the best way we have of understanding the world around us and of predicting future events in it. And that science is very clear on this subject. Anyhow, I'm off to bed. Big day tomorrow riding around on old motorbikes turning fossil fuel into CO2 emissions purely for the sake of entertainment. Yes, we are all doomed. Doomed I say. Edited By Hopper on 18/08/2022 12:20:32
Experience is telling me that you can't explain the science of how human contribution to CO2 affects the climate. If you can, it'd probably be quicker for you to post it here than keep replying to us need-to-be-convinced types. And scrap your planet-destroying motorbike while you're at it.
Martin. |
18/08/2022 11:44:03 |
Posted by derek hall 1 on 18/08/2022 10:00:33:
I thought "quantum" meant very small So when a politician says "there will be a quantum change in our manifesto".... You can manipulate statistics to support any evidence you want it to - politicians do it all the time Statistics = maths for politicians Just because Piers Corbyn "has got a degree in maths, physics and bionics" (thanks to the Undertones for that one!) does not mean that he is right I agree with Hopper and others that over 7 billion humans beings (and increasing) are doing something bad to our planet and it will not end well... Regards to all Derek
Does that just apply to Piers Corbyn, or can we now dismiss all climate scientist's credentials?
Martin. |
18/08/2022 11:37:38 |
Posted by duncan webster on 17/08/2022 23:33:23:
Posted by blowlamp on 15/08/2022 15:24:23:
Posted by duncan webster on 15/08/2022 15:10:14:
Piers Corbyn is Jeremy Corbyn's brother. Need I say more
Yeah, don't leave us hanging.
Martin. I never got round to answering this. For the benefit of non British folk, Jeremy Corbyn was leader of the UK Labour Party, as well as an anti-semitic supporter of any rag rag terrorist group. He was also anti NATO and anti EU (he reckoned it was a capitalist plot). Thankfully he was defeated at the last General election and has been thrown out of Labour. And I also forgot to mention that as well as being a climate change denier, brother Piers Corbyn is also a leading anti vaxxer. His views on the grassy knoll, the twin towers and Elvis on the moon are unknown Edited By duncan webster on 17/08/2022 23:46:16
So what bearing on this subject does his brother Jeremy have? It seems like you've made the mistake of using the fallacy of association argument to further whatever point it is you are trying to make. Much of what you have written about him is untrue, but you should know that he is still a member of the Labour Party and has been consistantly chosen by his constituents since 1983. Another thing you forgot to mention is this: Piers Corbyn is an Astrophysicist, he has a first class degree in Physics from Imperial College and an MSc in Astrophysics from Queen Mary College... Qualifications which I very much doubt you have. As you have already negated your own "grassy knoll, the twin towers and Elvis on the moon" comment, they can be disregarded as character assassination. Why do you think he should be 'pro vaccine', if he doesn't think they are of a benefit? To me, you seem to be agitated that people with views different to yours are voicing their opinion. What bothers you so much about that?
Martin.
|
17/08/2022 20:10:44 |
Posted by Hopper on 17/08/2022 06:20:59:
Posted by blowlamp on 16/08/2022 18:05:14:
... I don't know if a higher level of CO2 is a problem for mankind. All I have mentioned & asked about is whether higher CO2 levels are due solely to human activity or could other factors be involved? That's the problem. You don't know. But 97 per cent of the world's climate scientists say that manmade CO2 emissions are a huge problem, driving the current global warming. Argue with them about it, not some guy on an internet forum. They are the experts. They do know. You, by your own admission, don't.
Edited By Hopper on 17/08/2022 06:37:58
97% of climate scientists agree do they? To believe that cock & bull, someone would have had to ask every single one of them their opinion. That same someone would also need to be sure he's asking actual experts and not those that simply pass themselves off as climate experts. It seems to have passed you by, but Piers Corbyn is an Astrophysicist, he has a first class degree in Physics from Imperial College and an MSc in Astrophysics from Queen Mary College... So why should anyone listen to you when you're no expert yourself? It seems that being the character that you are, you have 'a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing' syndrome and that's why you're cocky with your comments to those that don't agree with you. If you knew and understood this topic, you might have posted a detailed, step-by-step explanation, but I don't see that anywhere. You claim to follow the experts, but in reality, you jump on the most popular bandwagon and back it as if it were your own. This can be seen repeatedly in your dismissive remarks about any scientist with differing ideas to what's fashionable at the moment.
Martin.
|
16/08/2022 23:24:46 |
Dave. In case you are unaware: Piers Corbyn is an Astrophysicist, he has a first class degree in Physics from Imperial College and an MSc in Astrophysics from Queen Mary College... I think that probably makes him a scientist that you should respect. Actually, no one has explained the mechanism CO2 has in connection with global warming in this thread, least of all you. Your last explanation of this to me was simply a wall of waffle. Dave said in a previous explanation of global warming - my comments in bold: I'll try again:
|
16/08/2022 18:05:14 |
Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 16/08/2022 14:57:46:
Posted by blowlamp on 16/08/2022 14:07:01:
Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 16/08/2022 11:23:18:
Posted by Robin on 16/08/2022 00:27:18:
Posted by Hopper on 15/08/2022 22:49:42: On the other side, a rabble of armchair Google "researchers" with no training or expertise in the field at all plus a few opportunists feeding them what they want to hear for financial or political gain. No argument. Just noise. How about Historian David Starkey? Is he an "armchair Google researcher"? Probably. Mr Starkey has no scientific training or experience in this subject. I find his opinions interesting but he's an historian with provocative conservative political views described as 'the rudest man in Britain'. I'd say he's exactly the sort of unqualified chap who feeds folk what they want to hear for financial or political gain. As he makes a good living by being controversial I suggest Mr Starkey's input to the climate debate is low-value. Opinion not backed by evidence has no place in a technical debate. Dave
"Opinion not backed by evidence has no place in a technical debate" Dave. In what way are you qualified to make that assessment of Mr Starkey - or is it just your opinion?
Martin. The statement wasn't specifically aimed at Mr Starkey, it's universally true. Engineering, science, and technology are all based on measurable facts, not unjustified guesswork. But I think it applies to Mr Starkey. I don't think my opinion of him is unjustified because I've not found any evidence in his statements that gainsays global warming. Perhaps I missed it. Can you put me right? What did Mr Starkey say to convince you global warming isn't a problem and why do you believe a historian but not a consensus of specialists? Dave
"The statement wasn't specifically aimed at Mr Starkey, it's universally true. Engineering, science, and technology are all based on measurable facts, not unjustified guesswork." You wrote six lines of text & mentioned him twice, by name, near the beginning and the end, so it certainly was aimed at him and only him. "But I think it applies to Mr Starkey. I don't think my opinion of him is unjustified because I've not found any evidence in his statements that gainsays global warming. Perhaps I missed it. Can you put me right?" Your opinion is as justified as his. However, you went on to rubbish his opinion because he's not a 'climate scientist' and you also made unwarranted accusations about his ethics. Whether he is right or wrong on this matter, it's a dirty tactic to use and one which I find unconvincing. "What did Mr Starkey say to convince you global warming isn't a problem and why do you believe a historian but not a consensus of specialists?" Nothing at all. I didn't know he even had a view on global warming. Where have I said "global warming isn't a problem"? I don't know if a higher level of CO2 is a problem for mankind. All I have mentioned & asked about is whether higher CO2 levels are due solely to human activity or could other factors be involved? As a moderator you should be responding to what's written and should not be putting a slant on my words to suit your personal bias.
Martin. |
16/08/2022 14:07:01 |
Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 16/08/2022 11:23:18:
Posted by Robin on 16/08/2022 00:27:18:
Posted by Hopper on 15/08/2022 22:49:42: On the other side, a rabble of armchair Google "researchers" with no training or expertise in the field at all plus a few opportunists feeding them what they want to hear for financial or political gain. No argument. Just noise. How about Historian David Starkey? Is he an "armchair Google researcher"? Probably. Mr Starkey has no scientific training or experience in this subject. I find his opinions interesting but he's an historian with provocative conservative political views described as 'the rudest man in Britain'. I'd say he's exactly the sort of unqualified chap who feeds folk what they want to hear for financial or political gain. As he makes a good living by being controversial I suggest Mr Starkey's input to the climate debate is low-value. Opinion not backed by evidence has no place in a technical debate. Dave
"Opinion not backed by evidence has no place in a technical debate" Dave. In what way are you qualified to make that assessment of Mr Starkey - or is it just your opinion?
Martin. |
16/08/2022 00:01:29 |
Posted by Hopper on 15/08/2022 22:49:42:
Posted by Martin Kyte on 15/08/2022 14:10:27:
Just to break into the "is it isn't it" argument regarding climate change. There is no argument. On one side you have 97 per cent of the world's climate scientists. On the other side, a rabble of armchair Google "researchers" with no training or expertise in the field at all plus a few opportunists feeding them what they want to hear for financial or political gain. No argument. Just noise.
Edited By Hopper on 15/08/2022 23:03:48
We know you like to dominate the conversation, but again, you have no proof to back up any of that claptrap. Yours isn't the only opinion out there so you'll need to find some coping mechanism to deal with it.
Martin. |
15/08/2022 15:24:23 |
Posted by duncan webster on 15/08/2022 15:10:14:
Piers Corbyn is Jeremy Corbyn's brother. Need I say more
Yeah, don't leave us hanging.
Martin. |
15/08/2022 14:31:45 |
You shouldn't try to project your own lack of curiosity onto others.
Martin. LOL. The Don Quixote school of research. Go on a personal quest and ignore the reality. Come to think of it, it were wind turbines that were one of his main enemies he tilted at. There is nothing new under the sun.
Edited By Hopper on 15/08/2022 12:34:21
Stick with your metalwork and get back to the sarcasm when you've had more practice.
Martin. |
15/08/2022 14:20:07 |
Posted by Bikepete on 15/08/2022 13:57:37:
Posted by blowlamp on 15/08/2022 13:33:51:
Posted by Bikepete on 15/08/2022 12:38:21:
Posted by blowlamp on 15/08/2022 12:13:00:
Posted by Bikepete on 15/08/2022 10:47:11:
Posted by blowlamp on 15/08/2022 10:11:47:
I don't see anyone explaining the lack of correlation between temperature and CO2 levels in the graph I posted on page 5, over a more than 100 year period.
Martin. That's a cherrypicked regional dataset (for the USA). Not useful evidence about global trends. And I'm unsure it's even accurate for the USA. A reverse google image search shows the graph was taken from a paper by well known climate denier Piers Corbyn. Of course there is the "one fact vs 100 scientists" thing already quoted above, but against that, would people not agree that some souces are more credible (and likely to be correct) than others? Here's a similar graph which does show global trends from the first vaguely credible source (a USA university) that came up on Google:
"...taken from a paper by well known climate denier Piers Corbyn..."
You mean this Piers Corbyn? "Piers Corbyn is an astrophysicist and Director of WeatherAction longrange (months and years ahead) forecasts. He has a First class degree in Physics from Imperial College and an MSc in Astrophysics from Queen Mary College. He has published numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers, starting from an early age, on subjects ranging from meteorology to cosmology and galaxy formation and has presented at many international conferences." Your own graph doesn't look very convincing, at either the start, the middle or the end, to be honest.
Martin.
So do you acknowledge that I answered your question with my point about the graph you posted being a regional dataset, and that this explains why it is not representative of global temperature vs CO2? If not, can you justify why USA data (bearing in mind that the USA covers ca. 1.87% of the surface area of the world) is an appropriate dataset to use to represent global trends? Edited By Bikepete on 15/08/2022 12:40:43
Rather than argue with each other about whose graph is best, let's pretend for a moment that my graph is either totally wrong or doesn't exist. If we now look at your graph in isolation, do you think it really shows that temperature & CO2 track one another? I see some divergence (over decades) where I wouldn't expect it, so I don't think either of us can rely on our graphs to tell the whole story. Even if temperature & CO2 were in lockstep, it still needs to be proved that human activity, rather than (say) Solar activity caused it and also that raised CO2 levels are a cause rather than an effect of warming. What's important to me is that we can discuss matters like this.
Martin.
Martin. I'm afraid I disagree. Changing the subject and "moving on" means you do not have to take responsibility for the graph and argument that you promoted. You promoted a graph using USA data which covers only ca. 1.87% of the earth's surface, and claimed that this disproved the global CO2 vs temperature correlation. I provided a counter-example from a reputable source, using global data which shows a clear correlation, to demonstrate that the USA data is not globally representative. Unless you can acknowledge that the graph you posted is misleading, I do not think there's much prospect of useful further discussion.
Quoting myself: "Rather than argue with each other about whose graph is best, let's pretend for a moment that my graph is either totally wrong or doesn't exist." What you mean is that once your graph is looked at critically & in isolation it shows itself for what it is and doesn't actually support your agument very well. I like the way your graph illustrates a drop in temperature despite high CO2 and a rise in temperature with lower CO2 - over decades.
Martin. |
Want the latest issue of Model Engineer or Model Engineers' Workshop? Use our magazine locator links to find your nearest stockist!
Sign up to our newsletter and get a free digital issue.
You can unsubscribe at anytime. View our privacy policy at www.mortons.co.uk/privacy
You can contact us by phone, mail or email about the magazines including becoming a contributor, submitting reader's letters or making queries about articles. You can also get in touch about this website, advertising or other general issues.
Click THIS LINK for full contact details.
For subscription issues please see THIS LINK.